Question about Capital Chapter 9

[Broletariat]

We have seen that the labourer, during one portion of the labour-process, produces only the value of his labour-power, that is, the value of his means of subsistence. Now since his work forms part of a system, based on the social division of labour, he does not directly produce the actual necessaries which he himself consumes; he produces instead a particular commodity, yarn for example, whose value is equal to the value of those necessaries or of the money with which they can be bought. The portion of his day’s labour devoted to this purpose, will be greater or less, in proportion to the value of the necessaries that he daily requires on an average, or, what amounts to the same thing, in proportion to the labour-time required on an average to produce them. If the value of those necessaries represent on an average the expenditure of six hours’ labour, the workman must on an average work for six hours to produce that value. If instead of working for the capitalist, he worked independently on his own account, he would, other things being equal, still be obliged to labour for the same number of hours, in order to produce the value of his labour-power, and thereby to gain the means of subsistence necessary for his conservation or continued reproduction. But as we have seen, during that portion of his day’s labour in which he produces the value of his labour-power, say three shillings, he produces only an equivalent for the value of his labour-power already advanced by the capitalist; the new value created only replaces the variable capital advanced. It is owing to this fact, that the production of the new value of three shillings takes the semblance of a mere reproduction. That portion of the working-day, then, during which this reproduction takes place, I call “necessary” labour time, and the labour expended during that time I call “necessary” labour. Necessary, as regards the labourer, because independent of the particular social form of his labour; necessary, as regards capital, and the world of capitalists, because on the continued existence of the labourer depends their existence also.

During the second period of the labour-process, that in which his labour is no longer necessary labour, the workman, it is true, labours, expends labour-power; but his labour, being no longer necessary labour, he creates no value for himself. He creates surplus-value which, for the capitalist, has all the charms of a creation out of nothing. This portion of the working-day, I name surplus labour-time, and to the labour expended during that time, I give the name of surplus-labour. It is every bit as important, for a correct understanding of surplus-value, to conceive it as a mere congelation of surplus labour-time, as nothing but materialised surplus-labour, as it is, for a proper comprehension of value, to conceive it as a mere congelation of so many hours of labour, as nothing but materialised labour. The essential difference between the various economic forms of society, between, for instance, a society based on slave-labour, and one based on wage-labour, lies only in the mode in which this surplus-labour is in each case extracted from the actual producer, the labourer.

This concept has always confused me. The first 6 hours of work are unexploited but the last 6 are surplus value?

How does this relate to wage-worker's who are on call and only work an hour at a time? Are they completely unexploited? Or is Marx making a kind of mistake here.

When he talked about machines and larger factory type equipment imparting value onto a product, he talked about it in fractions. If a machine cost 1,000 dollars, it imparted a dollar to each product or some such. Here it seems that Marx is now saying that certain hours are unexploited, and others are exploited. Is this not equivalent to saying that some commodities receive the transferred value of 1,000 and others don't? Intuitively, it just seems like those workers are still exploited.

Or am I making a mistake of looking at an individual worker too individually and not considering that worker as an aliquot part of a greater species of the proletariat? If I am making that mistake, please elaborate a bit more on my specific question.

I'm quite confused by this and have been well-before I started on Capital and this isn't clearing it up for me.

Edit: Or maybe I'm just a 1 in the morning dumbass and forget about the concept of monthly salary versus wage-work.

[Uncle Rob]

Essentially what he's saying is the worker produces more value than what he is paid in wages. For example: a Subway worker is paid eight dollars an hour and works for eight hours. During this time the Subway worker makes two-hundred sandwiches a day. Each sandwich sells for five dollars each, that's a total value of one-thousand dollars. However, at the end of the day the worker only receives sixty-four dollars even though they created a value of one-thousand through the labor process. Essentially, the worker is actually paying the capitalist nine-hundred and thirty-six dollars. So even though the worker has paid back the sixty-four dollars the capitalist paid him in the first couple hours or so he must still work for however many more hours the rest of his shift is.

[Broletariat]

Essentially what he's saying is the worker produces more value than what he is paid in wages. For example: a Subway worker is paid eight dollars an hour and works for eight hours. During this time the Subway worker makes two-hundred sandwiches a day. Each sandwich sells for five dollars each, that's a total value of one-thousand dollars. However, at the end of the day the worker only receives sixty-four dollars even though they created a value of one-thousand through the labor process. Essentially, the worker is actually paying the capitalist nine-hundred and thirty-six dollars. So even though the worker has paid back the sixty-four dollars the capitalist paid him in the first couple hours or so he must still work for however many more hours the rest of his shift is.

I'd like to just work with the form of example Marx gave us, the one you gave feels flawed.

If the worker is paid 6 dollars, he creates 6 dollars in the first 6 hours, but then works 6 more hours to make 6 extra dollars.

The first 6 hours were necessary labour-time/labour. The last 6 hours were surplus labour-time/labour.

My question is: does this mean that if the worker had only worked those first 6 hours s/he would've been totally unexploited?

I guess we just assume that since surplus-value is the raisen de etre of capital accumulation, that if a worker works 6 hours, they will be paid for 3 (assuming our 100% rate of surplus value). And that this scales with other hours and rates as well?

This of course leads me to question what determines the rate of surplus value, but for that, I shall keep reading.

[Broletariat]

This is unrelated to the topic, but hot damn this sentence has been quite enlightening.

"The essential difference between the various economic forms of society, between, for instance, a society based on slave-labour, and one based on wage-labour, lies only in the mode in which this surplus-labour is in each case extracted from the actual producer, the labourer."

[Uncle Rob]

I'd like to just work with the form of example Marx gave us, the one you gave feels flawed.

If the worker is paid 6 dollars, he creates 6 dollars in the first 6 hours, but then works 6 more hours to make 6 extra dollars.

The first 6 hours were necessary labour-time/labour. The last 6 hours were surplus labour-time/labour.

My question is: does this mean that if the worker had only worked those first 6 hours s/he would've been totally unexploited?

I guess we just assume that since surplus-value is the raisen de etre of capital accumulation, that if a worker works 6 hours, they will be paid for 3 (assuming our 100% rate of surplus value). And that this scales with other hours and rates as well?

This of course leads me to question what determines the rate of surplus value, but for that, I shall keep reading.

I should have been more clear. In my previous example I stated that the worker during his shift will have produced a new value of a thousand dollars. In exchange for the workers labor he is paid a wage of sixty-four dollars. Even if the product isn't sold he will still receive that wage.

Lets say in four hours the Subway worker made thirteen sandwiches. This is a value of sixty-five dollars. At this point in time the Subway worker has repaid his dues to the capitalist. However he is contracted to work the whole eight hours of his shift. The last four hours of his shift where he produces the other eighty-seven sandwiches is all surplus-value.

In Marx's example, the worker is contracted to work the whole twelve hours. If he were contracted to six, the surplus-value would be relative to the time worked as you pointed out.

[ZeroNowhere]

Really, I think that it's pretty clear. How does a capitalist gain their money? Through owning and selling the commodities which the worker produces. Capitalists gain money through owning things on the market, essentially.

However, it's clear that in order to make a profit (and complete the cycle M-C-M', hence making the initial investment worthwhile), the capitalist must own goods on the market with a greater total price than his investment. So, for example, if he paid $6 on wages (let's abstract from means of production here), if he only sells $6 worth of commodities he hasn't yet made a profit. So then let's say that this capitalist's workers produce 12 commodities, each with a price of $1. The capitalist won't make a profit until they have sold at least 7 of them. However, this is also determined by the amount of wages which they pay a worker, which may decrease if they are paid for smaller segments of time, as well as the amount paid on raw material (as less will be needed to produce less).

The result is that the total product of 12 commodities, or $12, may be divided between the amount which simply equals the capitalist's initial investment ($6 here), and that which actually forms a profit for him. It's fairly clear that, if a capitalist gains income from selling things, they also had to spend some money to get these things, and hence a certain amount of money received from selling these things will only make up for this money previously spent.

However, it will take the worker a certain amount of time, on average, to produce each commodity. The commodities cannot be conjured out of thin air, but must be produced over time. In that case, it will also take a certain amount of time to produce 6 commodities, although selling these will only replace the amount invested for the capitalist. As such, if the product may be divided into a certain amount whose selling replaces the investment and a certain amount representing profit, at the same time each commodity is the product of a certain amount of average labour-time, let's say half an hour. In that case, 6 commodities are produced in 3 hours, and hence 3 hours represent $6, only replacing the amount invested on wages. As such, the working day itself may be divided into a certain amount of time producing an amount of commodities which simply replaces wages, and the rest of this time, which produces profit.

In other words, if the cycle of capital is M-C-M', and M' = M + m (the original M invested + profit m), then nonetheless this M' is only a result of the commodities sold, in which each commodity represents a certain amount of money. As such, a certain amount of these commodities must represent M, another part M'. As such, a certain amount of time, that spent producing the commodities representing M, has not yet produced a profit, while the rest of the labour-time produces the commodities represented by M'. Of course, the investment C (means of production + labour-power) is spent for the total amount of labour-time given, say 6 hours (or, rather, for the capacity to produce for 6 hours), and as such less time being expended would also mean less initial expenditure.